The Person vs Human Being Thread (split from the Deerfoot Speeding Cam thread)

[Tower]

Originally Posted by malcolmk14

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread436338/pg1

sounds like you're either spouting this stuff all over the internet on conspiracy websites, or you just stole it from this dude, king9072.

Are you a big Robert Menard fan, bursting bubbles of government deception, magnificent deception, etc.,

Actually I have not STOLE anything but you are accusing me and my character which can make a person liable if proven. (But that is just an example and I am just being cheeky. I'm not even sure if it holds water.)
This information is readily available and offered freely. king9072 is also offering to educate it and seems much more in depth than myself currently. I only started reading about 1 month ago. There are many examples of actual notices and claims of right GRANTED by the Common Law Jurisdictions.

As for Robert Menard, hell yes. He is doing much more for Human Beings than most people. Do you know what his sisters position is in Government? Look it up! I'll give you a hint. she is very high up in LAW and while she does not aid him by telling him what to do she can not lie to him when he asks her a question. And there are links in this thread and others stating Think Free which is a Robert Menard site. So your not really uncovering anything there.

[GirlySports]

Just don't speed.

[Tower]

Ha ha ha ha

[justafan]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Just don't speed.

Much to logical for this discussion.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Tower

These things are such crap. We live in a Common Law Jurisdiction in Canada. These "fines" are bills and if you look at the Bill of Exchange Act - Two parties MUST agree to a bill. This is for any ticket given. Speed traps - if you get pulled over. Ask for 3 pieces of ID from the police (They need this to be in uniform) and as you get the ticket tell them that you understand this is a transaction under the bill of exchange and DO NOT sign. Accept it and take the original copy. This is your right.

This is exactly like the kind of thing Wesley Snipes and the stupid accountants working in that whole anti-IRS conspiracy ring spout.

It's garbage and won't hold up in a court of law. They fall under criminal law and not the common law. Fines are penalties upon summary conviction, not "bills". Going to jail is a penalty. As far as I know, both parties don't have to agree to that. I'd love to be able to say: "hey I don't agree with this!" and avoid getting locked up.

A ticket with a voluntary payment option is basically a way to plead guilty and pay a lesser penalty without going to court. That's the part that you agree to when you choose to pay a ticket. If not, you goto court or a warrant can be issued for your arrest.

[metallicat]

What in the hell is going on in this thread?

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by oilers_fan

What in the hell is going on in this thread?

I dunno man, I just read all 4 pages and my head is about to explode.

[Jedi Ninja]

Originally Posted by Boblobla

I dunno man, I just read all 4 pages and my head is about to explode.

I think if you read the entire text of the Magna Carta, everything will be clearer:

John, by the grace of God King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and Count of Anjou, to his archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justices, foresters, sheriffs, stewards, servants, and to all his officials and loyal subjects, greeting.
Know that before God, for the health of our soul and those of our ancestors and heirs, to the honour of God, the exaltation of the holy Church, and the better ordering of our kingdom, at the advice of our reverend fathers Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England, and cardinal of the holy Roman Church, Henry archbishop of Dublin, William bishop of London, Peter bishop of Winchester, Jocelin bishop of Bath and Glastonbury, Hugh bishop of Lincoln, Walter Bishop of Worcester, William bishop of Coventry, Benedict bishop of Rochester, Master Pandulf subdeacon and member of the papal household, Brother Aymeric master of the Knights of the Temple in England, William Marshal, earl of Pembroke, William earl of Salisbury, William earl of Warren, William earl of Arundel, Alan de Galloway constable of Scotland, Warin Fitz Gerald, Peter Fitz Herbert, Hubert de Burgh seneschal of Poitou, Hugh de Neville, Matthew Fitz Herbert, Thomas Basset, Alan Basset, Philip Daubeny, Robert de Roppeley, John Marshal, John Fitz Hugh, and other loyal subjects:
1. First, that we have granted to God, and by this present charter have confirmed for us and our heirs in perpetuity, that the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired. That we wish this so to be observed, appears from the fact that of our own free will, before the outbreak of the present dispute between us and our barons, we granted and confirmed by charter the freedom of the Church's elections - a right reckoned to be of the greatest necessity and importance to it - and caused this to be confirmed by Pope Innocent III. This freedom we shall observe ourselves, and desire to be observed in good faith by our heirs in perpetuity. We have also granted to all free men of our realm, for us and our heirs for ever, all the liberties written out below, to have and to keep for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs:
2. If any earl, baron, or other person that holds lands directly of the Crown, for military service, shall die, and at his death his heir shall be of full age and owe a `relief', the heir shall have his inheritance on payment of the ancient scale of `relief'. That is to say, the heir or heirs of an earl shall pay for the entire earl's barony, the heir or heirs of a knight l00s. at most for the entire knight's `fee', and any man that owes less shall pay less, in accordance with the ancient usage of `fees'
3. But if the heir of such a person is under age and a ward, when he comes of age he shall have his inheritance without `relief' or fine.
4. The guardian of the land of an heir who is under age shall take from it only reasonable revenues, customary dues, and feudal services. He shall do this without destruction or damage to men or property. If we have given the guardianship of the land to a sheriff, or to any person answerable to us for the revenues, and he commits destruction or damage, we will exact compensation from him, and the land shall be entrusted to two worthy and prudent men of the same `fee', who shall be answerable to us for the revenues, or to the person to whom we have assigned them. If we have given or sold to anyone the guardianship of such land, and he causes destruction or damage, he shall lose the guardianship of it, and it shall be handed over to two worthy and prudent men of the same `fee', who shall be similarly answerable to us.
5. For so long as a guardian has guardianship of such land, he shall maintain the houses, parks, fish preserves, ponds, mills, and everything else pertaining to it, from the revenues of the land itself. When the heir comes of age, he shall restore the whole land to him, stocked with plough teams and such implements of husbandry as the season demands and the revenues from the land can reasonably bear.
6. Heirs may be given in marriage, but not to someone of lower social standing. Before a marriage takes place, it shall be' made known to the heir's next-of-kin.
7. At her husband's death, a widow may have her marriage portion and inheritance at once and without trouble. She shall pay nothing for her dower, marriage portion, or any inheritance that she and her husband held jointly on the day of his death. She may remain in her husband's house for forty days after his death, and within this period her dower shall be assigned to her.

8. No widow shall be compelled to marry, so long as she wishes to remain without a husband. But she must give security that she will not marry without royal consent, if she holds her lands of the Crown, or without the consent of whatever other lord she may hold them of.
9. Neither we nor our officials will seize any land or rent in payment of a debt, so long as the debtor has movable goods sufficient to discharge the debt. A debtor's sureties shall not be distrained upon so long as the debtor himself can discharge his debt. If, for lack of means, the debtor is unable to discharge his debt, his sureties shall be answerable for it. If they so desire, they may have the debtor's lands and rents until they have received satisfaction for the debt that they paid for him, unless the debtor can show that he has settled his obligations to them.
10. If anyone who has borrowed a sum of money from Jews dies before the debt has been repaid, his heir shall pay no interest on the debt for so long as he remains under age, irrespective of whom he holds his lands. If such a debt falls into the hands of the Crown, it will take nothing except the principal sum specified in the bond.
11. If a man dies owing money to Jews, his wife may have her dower and pay nothing towards the debt from it. If he leaves children that are under age, their needs may also be provided for on a scale appropriate to the size of his holding of lands. The debt is to be paid out of the residue, reserving the service due to his feudal lords. Debts owed to persons other than Jews are to be dealt with similarly.
12. No `scutage' or `aid' may be levied in our kingdom without its general consent, unless it is for the ransom of our person, to make our eldest son a knight, and (once) to marry our eldest daughter. For these purposes ouly a reasonable `aid' may be levied. `Aids' from the city of London are to be treated similarly.
13. The city of London shall enjoy all its ancient liberties and free customs, both by land and by water. We also will and grant that all other cities, boroughs, towns, and ports shall enjoy all their liberties and free customs.
14. To obtain the general consent of the realm for the assessment of an `aid' - except in the three cases specified above - or a `scutage', we will cause the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, and greater barons to be summoned individually by letter. To those who hold lands directly of us we will cause a general summons to be issued, through the sheriffs and other officials, to come together on a fixed day (of which at least forty days notice shall be given) and at a fixed place. In all letters of summons, the cause of the summons will be stated. When a summons has been issued, the business appointed for the day shall go forward in accordance with the resolution of those present, even if not all those who were summoned have appeared.
15. In future we will allow no one to levy an `aid' from his free men, except to ransom his person, to make his eldest son a knight, and (once) to marry his eldest daughter. For these purposes only a reasonable `aid' may be levied.

TO BE CONTINUED...

[metallicat]

Originally Posted by Jedi Ninja

I think if you read the entire text of the Magna Carta, everything will be clearer:



TO BE CONTINUED...

Please don't let it be true.

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by Jedi Ninja

I think if you read the entire text of the Magna Carta, everything will be clearer:



TO BE CONTINUED...

[Boblobla]

In other news, I found this gem while looking for an image to post here.

[Jedi Ninja]

[onetwo_threefour]

Allow me to be the first lawyer to come out and say that the premise that you can apply the Bills of Exchange act to citations issued for offences is gibberish. The Bills of Exchange Act deals with voluntary commercial transactions, not with penalties imposed for breach of laws passed by Parliament or Legislatures. The specific Acts (i.e. Traffic Safety Act) occupy the field in terms of defining offences, penalties, mechanisms for contesting, etc. There is no room for the Bills of Exchange Act to operate in the sphere of tickets and fines.

You may want to read the Provincial and Federal Interpretation Acts, the Judicature Act, the Rules of Court, and the Traffic Safety Act before coming up with any more theories. In addition, you may want to also take a constitutional law course to understand why the Federal Government power relating to Banking and Bills of Exchange does not operate within the Provincial sphere of Regulating Highways in the Province which is where the power to fine is derived. (Assuming of course that your assertion that a ticket is a bill of exchange isn't ludicrous on it's face.)

[Mike F]

I've just watched a bunch of Robert Menard's "Bursting the Bubble of Government Deception" and I'll be the second lawyer to call it gibberish.

The notion that the fact that the Bill of Rights lists no hierarchy under God means that every person is second only to god and thus not subject to government power is ridiculous.

Similarly, the idea that the Income Tax Act has no power because it lacks a preamble is laughable.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

It's garbage and won't hold up in a court of law..

Of course it won't the court of law is run by the Government! See what they're trying to do?!

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by photon

Of course it won't the court of law is run by the Government! See what they're trying to do?!

Man, we should all move to China where the court of law and the government is run by the people. That's what the sign says!

[ResAlien]

I really don't have anything useful to add to the conversation, but Tower, thank you. You make my days better at work. Between this and the "don't get vaccinated 'cause it's a scam" thread, I truly enjoy my day at work. I really want to break my don't post at work rule, and by the time I get home I forget my point. Keep the faith alive! Enjoy the alternative thinking, you seem to be on an eff of a ride.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by photon

Of course it won't the court of law is run by the Government! See what they're trying to do?!

[flylock shox]

I thought this brand of lunacy sounded familiar (he said, providing a link to a similar thread by the same OP).

Allow me to be the second lawyer to say that this line of argument has been roundly rejected by courts right across this country and holds no legal water whatsoever. And the last time I saw some nutbar raise the "person" argument in court, the judge leaned back in her chair, counted the tiles in the ceiling, and then asked the sheriffs to remove said nutbar from the courtroom.

And I in no way wish to imply that the OP is a loony or a nutbar. I only wish to say that, in my personal and professional experience, I have only seen this type of argument advanced by loonies and nutbars.

Edit: Curses! Make that the THIRD lawyer. God. This place is just crawling with lawyers.

[CaptainCrunch]